Newsfilter as flag? March 24, 2005 10:01 AM Subscribe
This is getting irritating. Could "newsfilter" please be added to to the list of flag terms?
I'm not sure that post is a good example of the way most people use the term "newsfilter." It doesn't seem like a great post to me, but a newsfilter post is generally one that does nothing more than encourage yammering about a well known news story, such as the omnipresent Schiavo case.
I do think a newsfilter flag would be a good idea, however, as there are plenty of those posts floating around.
posted by anapestic at 10:05 AM on March 24, 2005
I do think a newsfilter flag would be a good idea, however, as there are plenty of those posts floating around.
posted by anapestic at 10:05 AM on March 24, 2005
Perhaps FarkFilter? As interesting as this FPP may be, fark.com probably has a minimum of two or three of these every day, as do other sites specializing in new-and-unusual news.
posted by WestCoaster at 10:10 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by WestCoaster at 10:10 AM on March 24, 2005
I'm not sure that post is a good example of the way most people use the term "newsfilter."
OK, fair enough. I guess I mean "single link and not much else" post. If that's too harsh, I apologize. I'm in a foul mood and should probably just go for a walk.
posted by 327.ca at 10:13 AM on March 24, 2005
OK, fair enough. I guess I mean "single link and not much else" post. If that's too harsh, I apologize. I'm in a foul mood and should probably just go for a walk.
posted by 327.ca at 10:13 AM on March 24, 2005
'NewsFilter' has been with us since the beginning. On the other hand, a bad news-related post can easily be flagged with the 'noise' flag.
Just like I've just done with this pointless shooting-the-ashes-of-the-previously-liquefied-dead-horse-into-space post.
posted by i_cola at 10:14 AM on March 24, 2005
Just like I've just done with this pointless shooting-the-ashes-of-the-previously-liquefied-dead-horse-into-space post.
posted by i_cola at 10:14 AM on March 24, 2005
Can we have an "annoying whiny callout" flag for MeTa posts?
posted by xmutex at 10:15 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by xmutex at 10:15 AM on March 24, 2005
This is what happens when you don't keep up with you meds.
posted by c13 at 10:21 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by c13 at 10:21 AM on March 24, 2005
Do you get a feeding tube on these weightless flights? No? Then it's not newsfilter.
Remember kids, feeding tubes = newsfilter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:37 AM on March 24, 2005
Remember kids, feeding tubes = newsfilter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:37 AM on March 24, 2005
But more seriously, it's a weak post. Very weak. Delete worthy? Not quite. Do I really need to add a flag description? Not really.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:40 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:40 AM on March 24, 2005
What's wrong with "it breaks the guidelines?" It's not like the flags are fed into some unthinking computer program which deletes or not depending on a complex formula based on the number of each type of flag it gets. Matt's a smart boy; he can tell when something is NewsFilter.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:42 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:42 AM on March 24, 2005
mathowie: "Remember kids, feeding tubes = newsfilter."
Is this newsfilter? The post would be titled "Wendys gives customer the finger." There's no feeding tube mentioned, but there is unintentional cannibalism. I guess we need a "bad taste - literally" flag.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:58 AM on March 24, 2005
Is this newsfilter? The post would be titled "Wendys gives customer the finger." There's no feeding tube mentioned, but there is unintentional cannibalism. I guess we need a "bad taste - literally" flag.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:58 AM on March 24, 2005
I'm not sure that post is a good example of the way most people use the term "newsfilter." It doesn't seem like a great post to me,
Matt it is delete worthy as it is not "new" news.
If the poster had incorporated Virgin/USA/Russia plans could see it being more complete.
Compared to Russia's program this hang gliding.
Look! -- Aleve a new aspirin.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:11 AM on March 24, 2005
Matt it is delete worthy as it is not "new" news.
If the poster had incorporated Virgin/USA/Russia plans could see it being more complete.
Compared to Russia's program this hang gliding.
Look! -- Aleve a new aspirin.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:11 AM on March 24, 2005
I guess I mean "single link and not much else" post.
What's wrong with "single link and not much else" posts?
posted by mischief at 11:18 AM on March 24, 2005
What's wrong with "single link and not much else" posts?
posted by mischief at 11:18 AM on March 24, 2005
Sometimes nothing, mischief. It depends on the link.
posted by orange swan at 11:27 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by orange swan at 11:27 AM on March 24, 2005
I liked the post. It probably would have taken me longer to discover that a company in Sweden was now offering parabolic flights to the public. Some background linkage would be nice, though.
posted by loquacious at 11:31 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by loquacious at 11:31 AM on March 24, 2005
I always assume that if I found out about it first on CNN, it probably doesn't belong on MetaFilter.
posted by grateful at 11:47 AM on March 24, 2005
posted by grateful at 11:47 AM on March 24, 2005
Again, I'll also post a (shorter) apology here... I definitely didn't mean to offend or annoy anyone with my post. I did read the guidelines before hand, though I admit to this being my first (and honestly now going to be last) post, but I felt it was something that might spark interesting conversation on the site. I understand the point about keeping too much "in the spotlight" news from the front page of the site, but really I've seen seemingly much weaker posts from time to time that don't get a word said to them - so I'll assume I did something really, really wrong that I'm just not seeing here. But again, this is a community I thought I was a part of and was also mistaken about this. I still think this has a great chance to be used to share lots of information, and I've always found it useful and interesting, but I think I'm going to have to take a break for while. Sorry again.
posted by meg6212 at 12:17 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by meg6212 at 12:17 PM on March 24, 2005
Meg6212, I posted a comment in the thread (would have been better placed here, but oh well) and just to add to that, I'd urge you to stick around. You'll have to do what you think is best, but honestly, this isn't a big deal and if you like coming here, it would be shame to leave over a little thing like this.
posted by orange swan at 12:26 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by orange swan at 12:26 PM on March 24, 2005
Don't go. There aren't many cute nerdy girls here. Most of them run away immediately.
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:30 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:30 PM on March 24, 2005
I definitely didn't mean to offend or annoy anyone with my post.
Your only real transgression was not making this about orthogonality somehow.
Seriously, though, the post isn't a big deal. It only got posted in MeTa because somebody was having a bad day, and he already apologized.
posted by anapestic at 12:44 PM on March 24, 2005
Your only real transgression was not making this about orthogonality somehow.
Seriously, though, the post isn't a big deal. It only got posted in MeTa because somebody was having a bad day, and he already apologized.
posted by anapestic at 12:44 PM on March 24, 2005
What's wrong with "single link and not much else" posts?
mischief, in this case here it would be posting a news clip every time a civilian goes in space or floats w/o gravity.
Hey look in the sky; Ron Howard is in production of Apollo 13 II which is currently floating weightlessly in a plane.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:46 PM on March 24, 2005
mischief, in this case here it would be posting a news clip every time a civilian goes in space or floats w/o gravity.
Hey look in the sky; Ron Howard is in production of Apollo 13 II which is currently floating weightlessly in a plane.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:46 PM on March 24, 2005
Don't go. There aren't many cute nerdy girls here.
Never mind cute: someone who lists Juxtapoz and Cat Fancy on their list of favorite publications totally belongs here!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:47 PM on March 24, 2005
Never mind cute: someone who lists Juxtapoz and Cat Fancy on their list of favorite publications totally belongs here!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:47 PM on March 24, 2005
But again, this is a community I thought I was a part of and was also mistaken about this.
Why does this thread make you feel you're not part of the community? If anything, now you're a star. (The only way you may not be one of us is if you truly didn't realize we're a bunch of snarky assholes before you posted, and c'mon you knew that.)
Check out the supporting links that SteveInMaine and mathowie posted in the blue. Had you included them or similar ones in the your FPP, a so-so post would have been an excellent one. You're halfway there, don't turn back now.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:48 PM on March 24, 2005
Why does this thread make you feel you're not part of the community? If anything, now you're a star. (The only way you may not be one of us is if you truly didn't realize we're a bunch of snarky assholes before you posted, and c'mon you knew that.)
Check out the supporting links that SteveInMaine and mathowie posted in the blue. Had you included them or similar ones in the your FPP, a so-so post would have been an excellent one. You're halfway there, don't turn back now.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:48 PM on March 24, 2005
Some background linkage would be nice, though
Zero Gravity Corp., based in Dania Beach, Fla., is the first company to receive government approval to offer these acrobatic flights in the United States. Similar companies operate overseas.
PCC staff member accomplishes her lifelong dream by taking a zero-gravity flight. .
Adventure travel helps companies keep younger employees pumped about incentive awards
Looking at the dates, not new news and the post would have been greatly supported by it. Maybe following scientific news is the downfall here for the criticism.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:58 PM on March 24, 2005
Zero Gravity Corp., based in Dania Beach, Fla., is the first company to receive government approval to offer these acrobatic flights in the United States. Similar companies operate overseas.
PCC staff member accomplishes her lifelong dream by taking a zero-gravity flight. .
Adventure travel helps companies keep younger employees pumped about incentive awards
Looking at the dates, not new news and the post would have been greatly supported by it. Maybe following scientific news is the downfall here for the criticism.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:58 PM on March 24, 2005
Amusing Newsy story from CNN = Immediate MetaTalk post about its 'irritating' nature
Thoroughly editorialized one-link post to Kos on a subject discussed a million times = no one flinches
Baffling.
posted by dhoyt at 12:59 PM on March 24, 2005
Thoroughly editorialized one-link post to Kos on a subject discussed a million times = no one flinches
Baffling.
posted by dhoyt at 12:59 PM on March 24, 2005
no, dhoyt, that links sucks too. Delete worthy? Not quite.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:09 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:09 PM on March 24, 2005
meg6212, don't take it so personally, 327.ca is being a dickhead because he's in a bad mood. Surely you'll agree that its perfectly fine to lash out at people if you're in a bad mood, right?
posted by c13 at 1:55 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by c13 at 1:55 PM on March 24, 2005
Surely you'll agree that its perfectly fine to lash out at people if you're in a bad mood, right?
But surely you'll agree that it happens sometimes and when the guilty party apologizes there's not much use in continuing to take digs at them, right?
posted by Cyrano at 2:06 PM on March 24, 2005
But surely you'll agree that it happens sometimes and when the guilty party apologizes there's not much use in continuing to take digs at them, right?
posted by Cyrano at 2:06 PM on March 24, 2005
I don't know, Cyrano, I think that driving off a new member of a community is more of a transgression than posting a somewhat mediocre link. Yes, he apologized, and I'm not really picking on him in particular. But there is a number of members here who are very confrontational and who think their behaviour is appropriate because they happened to join earlier. And this prevents other, less confrontational members from participating in the conmmunity. And this bothers me more than lame links. I think that standars for calling out a thread should be just as strict at the ones for posting. But that's just MHO.
posted by c13 at 2:49 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by c13 at 2:49 PM on March 24, 2005
Baffling.
You would be happier if every bad post got criticized? It is not surprising when some things get picked on and other things don't. It's like tax returns getting audited: many, many returns are deeply flawed, but only a few get punished for it. One could go so far as to draw parallels between the link between increased tax fraud and low levels of IRS oversight and the link between increased levels of deficient postings and lax MeFi oversight, but one would only do that if one were an overworked CPA looking at another five hours of work before one could call it a night.
I think that driving off a new member of a community is more of a transgression than posting a somewhat mediocre link.
I think that if someone gets driven off by the level of unpleasantness in this particular thread, that person probably had too thin of a skin to survive here for very long to start with.
posted by anapestic at 3:03 PM on March 24, 2005
You would be happier if every bad post got criticized? It is not surprising when some things get picked on and other things don't. It's like tax returns getting audited: many, many returns are deeply flawed, but only a few get punished for it. One could go so far as to draw parallels between the link between increased tax fraud and low levels of IRS oversight and the link between increased levels of deficient postings and lax MeFi oversight, but one would only do that if one were an overworked CPA looking at another five hours of work before one could call it a night.
I think that driving off a new member of a community is more of a transgression than posting a somewhat mediocre link.
I think that if someone gets driven off by the level of unpleasantness in this particular thread, that person probably had too thin of a skin to survive here for very long to start with.
posted by anapestic at 3:03 PM on March 24, 2005
hat person probably had too thin of a skin to survive here for very long to start with.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? So then its perfectly OK to, for example, talk on the phone in the middle of a movie theater? Because, you know, if people are so easily distracted, they don't belong there to start with, and should go watch a movie at home? Why should 22852 people tolerate or adjust to a few whining assholes, and since when do they get to dictate what requirements for skin thickness are? This thread, ironically enough, is listed under etiquette. You know what that word means, right?
posted by c13 at 3:21 PM on March 24, 2005
What the hell is that supposed to mean? So then its perfectly OK to, for example, talk on the phone in the middle of a movie theater? Because, you know, if people are so easily distracted, they don't belong there to start with, and should go watch a movie at home? Why should 22852 people tolerate or adjust to a few whining assholes, and since when do they get to dictate what requirements for skin thickness are? This thread, ironically enough, is listed under etiquette. You know what that word means, right?
posted by c13 at 3:21 PM on March 24, 2005
"I always assume that if I found out about it first on CNN, it probably doesn't belong on MetaFilter."
"I always assume that if I found out about it first on CNN, it probably doesn't belong on MetaFilter."
"I always assume that if I found out about it first on CNN, it probably doesn't belong on MetaFilter."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:23 PM on March 24, 2005
"I always assume that if I found out about it first on CNN, it probably doesn't belong on MetaFilter."
"I always assume that if I found out about it first on CNN, it probably doesn't belong on MetaFilter."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:23 PM on March 24, 2005
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means that mefi is full of assholes (no, I'm not calling anyone an asshole--this is a general statement), and if that bothers you, this place may not be a good fit.
It may be a damned shame, but it's true.
posted by frykitty at 3:34 PM on March 24, 2005
It means that mefi is full of assholes (no, I'm not calling anyone an asshole--this is a general statement), and if that bothers you, this place may not be a good fit.
It may be a damned shame, but it's true.
posted by frykitty at 3:34 PM on March 24, 2005
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means that we're adults here, and if you can't stand a modest amount of criticism, you should go somewhere else. The FPP in this case was weak, and it was called out as weak. 327 could have been nicer about it, but he could also have been a lot less nice.
I consistently argue here for kinder and gentler treatment of my fellow posters. Compare, for example, the general tone of my posts (other than those addressed to the quonsar) with the tone of yours to me. But people occasionally take shots at me, and I don't go running off crying because I understand that people are often rude here.
To me, it makes a great deal more sense to eliminate the most offensive responses and to tolerate the relatively mild ones, such as the ones seen in this thread than to try to enforce a no-snark zone. Not only is that impossible, it would be boring.
posted by anapestic at 3:47 PM on March 24, 2005
It means that we're adults here, and if you can't stand a modest amount of criticism, you should go somewhere else. The FPP in this case was weak, and it was called out as weak. 327 could have been nicer about it, but he could also have been a lot less nice.
I consistently argue here for kinder and gentler treatment of my fellow posters. Compare, for example, the general tone of my posts (other than those addressed to the quonsar) with the tone of yours to me. But people occasionally take shots at me, and I don't go running off crying because I understand that people are often rude here.
To me, it makes a great deal more sense to eliminate the most offensive responses and to tolerate the relatively mild ones, such as the ones seen in this thread than to try to enforce a no-snark zone. Not only is that impossible, it would be boring.
posted by anapestic at 3:47 PM on March 24, 2005
Oh, well, since YOU ASSUME, then of course you're completely justified in being an asshole...
On preview, no, mefi is not "full of assholes". Most people a nice enough. But there is a small number of very loud, whining, obnoxious asshats, who think for some reason that mefi is their own personal playground. And it does bother me, but obviously a lot less than some other people.
Besides, if this place is indeed a fraternity of some sort, with attendant hazings and all, surely its ok to take digs at "older brothers", right? I mean they, of all people, can handle it?
Anapestic, I don't mean to be rude to you, but I'm really buffled by you point. Why are you blaiming the victim?
But again, all I'm really saying is that standards for calling someone's thread out should be as strict as standards for posting.
posted by c13 at 3:54 PM on March 24, 2005
On preview, no, mefi is not "full of assholes". Most people a nice enough. But there is a small number of very loud, whining, obnoxious asshats, who think for some reason that mefi is their own personal playground. And it does bother me, but obviously a lot less than some other people.
Besides, if this place is indeed a fraternity of some sort, with attendant hazings and all, surely its ok to take digs at "older brothers", right? I mean they, of all people, can handle it?
Anapestic, I don't mean to be rude to you, but I'm really buffled by you point. Why are you blaiming the victim?
But again, all I'm really saying is that standards for calling someone's thread out should be as strict as standards for posting.
posted by c13 at 3:54 PM on March 24, 2005
Why are you blaiming the victim?
In my experience, the term "blaming the victim" is generally used when there's been a violent crime of some sort. How is someone victimized by having his or her post criticized? What horrible wrong has been perpetrated upon her person? I do not think that quitting the site is a rational reaction to the level of criticism that happened here, and I think it indicates a level of hypersensitivity that is incompatible with a happy existence at MeFi.
posted by anapestic at 4:08 PM on March 24, 2005
In my experience, the term "blaming the victim" is generally used when there's been a violent crime of some sort. How is someone victimized by having his or her post criticized? What horrible wrong has been perpetrated upon her person? I do not think that quitting the site is a rational reaction to the level of criticism that happened here, and I think it indicates a level of hypersensitivity that is incompatible with a happy existence at MeFi.
posted by anapestic at 4:08 PM on March 24, 2005
You haven't answered my question, the one about phone calls. Again, is it ok? No horrible wrongs have been perpetrated. Everyone will survive just fine. But is it ok? And how different it is from situation here in mefi? I'm not talking about just this one thread. There isn't practically a day that goes by without someone bitching about the same thing. It's a good thing that most of it happens here in meta, but its interesting to note that the subset of users here is disproportionately small compared to the whole population.
posted by c13 at 4:21 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by c13 at 4:21 PM on March 24, 2005
You haven't answered my question, the one about phone calls.
Your analogy is weak. Using your cell phone in the middle of a movie is not acceptable, and, as far as I know, no one really claims that it is acceptable. However, since criticizing people in MeTa is the accepted norm, the situations are not comparable.
As you note, not a day goes by without people criticizing other posters here. I have not heard a person answer a cell phone in a movie theatre in years. When I go to the symphony or the opera, there is generally an announcement reminding people to turn off their cell phones. Similarly, most movie theatres now either put up a slide saying not to use cell phones or play what passes as a humorous feature showing that cell phone usage is wrong and that there will be consequences. There is nothing in MeTa, so far as I know, saying that criticizing other posters is bad form.
posted by anapestic at 4:30 PM on March 24, 2005
Your analogy is weak. Using your cell phone in the middle of a movie is not acceptable, and, as far as I know, no one really claims that it is acceptable. However, since criticizing people in MeTa is the accepted norm, the situations are not comparable.
As you note, not a day goes by without people criticizing other posters here. I have not heard a person answer a cell phone in a movie theatre in years. When I go to the symphony or the opera, there is generally an announcement reminding people to turn off their cell phones. Similarly, most movie theatres now either put up a slide saying not to use cell phones or play what passes as a humorous feature showing that cell phone usage is wrong and that there will be consequences. There is nothing in MeTa, so far as I know, saying that criticizing other posters is bad form.
posted by anapestic at 4:30 PM on March 24, 2005
There is nothing in MeTa, so far as I know, saying that criticizing other posters is bad form.
How about simple rules of human decency? If you need to criticize someone, do so in a constructive and polite matter or keep your mouth shut. Oh wait...courtesy and decency don't apply to MeTa because they aren't explicitly written out by mathowie or other noteworthy posters. Or are you of the belief that this is the internet, so any form of abuse of acceptable since it's all anonymous anyway?
I never understood why people felt it was okay to vent their impolite frustrations over the internet knowing full well that if they did it in real life, they'd get their ass handed to them. Don't people have healthier ways of venting?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:47 PM on March 24, 2005
How about simple rules of human decency? If you need to criticize someone, do so in a constructive and polite matter or keep your mouth shut. Oh wait...courtesy and decency don't apply to MeTa because they aren't explicitly written out by mathowie or other noteworthy posters. Or are you of the belief that this is the internet, so any form of abuse of acceptable since it's all anonymous anyway?
I never understood why people felt it was okay to vent their impolite frustrations over the internet knowing full well that if they did it in real life, they'd get their ass handed to them. Don't people have healthier ways of venting?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:47 PM on March 24, 2005
Oh, c'mon c13, MeFi is too full of assholes. That doesn't make it less fun. It makes it moreso.
There is absolutely no reason to leave simply because your first post was ripped, meg6212. This happens to everyone, at some point or other. Calm down, roll with the punches, and post again. Shit, every time I post I worry I'll get called out, but I don't really care. MeTa makes the day more interesting. It needs to be pointed out that this is just a website.
This is just a website.
This is just a website.
posted by graventy at 4:52 PM on March 24, 2005
There is absolutely no reason to leave simply because your first post was ripped, meg6212. This happens to everyone, at some point or other. Calm down, roll with the punches, and post again. Shit, every time I post I worry I'll get called out, but I don't really care. MeTa makes the day more interesting. It needs to be pointed out that this is just a website.
This is just a website.
This is just a website.
posted by graventy at 4:52 PM on March 24, 2005
And I will keep myself from posting period since it does not seem to be welcome. . .So I'm sorry to have bothered some of you so... it'll never happen again.
posted by meg6212 at 12:02 PM PST on March 24
. . . I'll assume I did something really, really wrong that I'm just not seeing here. But again, this is a community I thought I was a part of and was also mistaken about this . . . I think I'm going to have to take a break for while. . .
posted by meg6212 at 12:17 PM PST on March 24
Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Classic passive-aggressive attention-seeking behavior. Do not feed the zoo animals.
Come on, if you want to leave in true Mefi style you need to make a metatalk post and really flameout.
posted by Jim Jones at 5:06 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by meg6212 at 12:02 PM PST on March 24
. . . I'll assume I did something really, really wrong that I'm just not seeing here. But again, this is a community I thought I was a part of and was also mistaken about this . . . I think I'm going to have to take a break for while. . .
posted by meg6212 at 12:17 PM PST on March 24
Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Classic passive-aggressive attention-seeking behavior. Do not feed the zoo animals.
Come on, if you want to leave in true Mefi style you need to make a metatalk post and really flameout.
posted by Jim Jones at 5:06 PM on March 24, 2005
I prefer the Jim Jones style of talking to oneself. And not leaving.
posted by graventy at 5:07 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by graventy at 5:07 PM on March 24, 2005
Or are you of the belief that this is the internet, so any form of abuse of acceptable since it's all anonymous anyway?
Emphatically not, nor do I believe that my posting history supports such a contention. However, "abuse" is too strong a word for what happened here. The fact that a person reacts to criticism as if she had been struck does not mean that the criticism was equivalent to striking. People are making the criticism in this case out to be awful because of the response, and what I'm saying is that the response is entirely out of proportion to the stimulus.
I will say that my initial reaction to the tearful departure was similar to Jim Jones', but I was too polite to put it that way, and I thought that perhaps there was some chance that meg would decide that she hadn't been treated so very badly and would elect to stay. Still, the way she left was very much a slightly muted version of the classic MetaFilter flameout.
posted by anapestic at 5:14 PM on March 24, 2005
Emphatically not, nor do I believe that my posting history supports such a contention. However, "abuse" is too strong a word for what happened here. The fact that a person reacts to criticism as if she had been struck does not mean that the criticism was equivalent to striking. People are making the criticism in this case out to be awful because of the response, and what I'm saying is that the response is entirely out of proportion to the stimulus.
I will say that my initial reaction to the tearful departure was similar to Jim Jones', but I was too polite to put it that way, and I thought that perhaps there was some chance that meg would decide that she hadn't been treated so very badly and would elect to stay. Still, the way she left was very much a slightly muted version of the classic MetaFilter flameout.
posted by anapestic at 5:14 PM on March 24, 2005
What SeizeTheDay said. Also, its funny how ADULTS here require the rules explicitly stated for them and the real possiblity of "consequences" in order to behave.
How passive-aggressive does one have to be lash out a someone for "single link and not much else" just because he happens to be in a "foul mood"?
On preview: I agree somewhat with you, graventy. I don't mind picking a fight from time to time. And snarks don't really bother me. But I do it with people who obviously enjoy this kind of thing. Also, arguing with someone is very different from running to meta whining about how bad the post is or how you've seen it posted somewhere else and would Matt please do something. Or how this place used to be oh-so-much better before all those unwashed n00bs showed up. This sounds all the more pathetic after reading "the helpful advice to noobs form the wise old timers" about how "its just a web site" and "one needs to have a thick skin" and all. (I'm not referring to your post in any way).
posted by c13 at 5:15 PM on March 24, 2005
How passive-aggressive does one have to be lash out a someone for "single link and not much else" just because he happens to be in a "foul mood"?
On preview: I agree somewhat with you, graventy. I don't mind picking a fight from time to time. And snarks don't really bother me. But I do it with people who obviously enjoy this kind of thing. Also, arguing with someone is very different from running to meta whining about how bad the post is or how you've seen it posted somewhere else and would Matt please do something. Or how this place used to be oh-so-much better before all those unwashed n00bs showed up. This sounds all the more pathetic after reading "the helpful advice to noobs form the wise old timers" about how "its just a web site" and "one needs to have a thick skin" and all. (I'm not referring to your post in any way).
posted by c13 at 5:15 PM on March 24, 2005
meg6212 writes "But again, this is a community I thought I was a part of and was also mistaken about this. I still think this has a great chance to be used to share lots of information, and I've always found it useful and interesting, but I think I'm going to have to take a break for while. Sorry again."
MetaTalk: a public shaming ritual and Maoist-style "re-education", completed with the "transgressor's" abject apology.
Let a thousand flowers bloom!
(And see, if after we dunk her, it turns out meg6212 floats, then she's not a witch after all!)
You know, if meg6212's single-link post annoyed you so much, you could have, like, added a few related links, constructively improving the post, rather than tearing it down in MetaTalk. But that doesn't nearly give the ego-boost of tearing someone down, implying they're not really as much a part of the community as you are, piling on, and making them apologize in public, so I suppose it'd be less fun.
Christ's sake, people, is there some program where you get fee iPods if you're mean-spirited often enough?
posted by orthogonality at 5:38 PM on March 24, 2005
MetaTalk: a public shaming ritual and Maoist-style "re-education", completed with the "transgressor's" abject apology.
Let a thousand flowers bloom!
(And see, if after we dunk her, it turns out meg6212 floats, then she's not a witch after all!)
You know, if meg6212's single-link post annoyed you so much, you could have, like, added a few related links, constructively improving the post, rather than tearing it down in MetaTalk. But that doesn't nearly give the ego-boost of tearing someone down, implying they're not really as much a part of the community as you are, piling on, and making them apologize in public, so I suppose it'd be less fun.
Christ's sake, people, is there some program where you get fee iPods if you're mean-spirited often enough?
posted by orthogonality at 5:38 PM on March 24, 2005
Lest we forget : criticizing the poster is bad form, criticizing the poster's arguments, ideas, or posts and comments in and of themselves, particularly if they clearly transgress the Unwritten Laws (which grow out of whatever degree of community consensus about the direction of the site that can be reached in Metatalk), is eminently permissable. Remember when people would (ad nauseum, I admit) rag on people for committing the sin of ad hominem attacks? Them was the good ol' days, young 'uns!
Even better, if you must, is to point to something calmly (even if it does irritate you) and request comments as to its suitability, rather than labelling it a turd in the punchbowl and starting a flamewar about it. Although, granted, sometimes a turd is inarguably a turd.
I speak in generalities. I haven't even looked at the post linked by the thread starter.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:50 PM on March 24, 2005
Even better, if you must, is to point to something calmly (even if it does irritate you) and request comments as to its suitability, rather than labelling it a turd in the punchbowl and starting a flamewar about it. Although, granted, sometimes a turd is inarguably a turd.
I speak in generalities. I haven't even looked at the post linked by the thread starter.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:50 PM on March 24, 2005
Yes, generalities, but good ones, stavros.
Generalities, however, which don't apply in this case. I don't believe criticizing the poster really was a problem. It's possible matt snipped a comment or two from the blue, but overall a civil tone ruled the FPP. And even 327.c is annoyed by "This" not "Her" here in the gray.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:10 PM on March 24, 2005
Generalities, however, which don't apply in this case. I don't believe criticizing the poster really was a problem. It's possible matt snipped a comment or two from the blue, but overall a civil tone ruled the FPP. And even 327.c is annoyed by "This" not "Her" here in the gray.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:10 PM on March 24, 2005
MetaTalk: "transgressor's" abject apology.
Sometimes.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:13 PM on March 24, 2005
Sometimes.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:13 PM on March 24, 2005
anapestic, my comment wasn't really in reference to the currently "called out" post, or the poster who has left because of snide comments. My concern was specifically made because of your statement: There is nothing in MeTa, so far as I know, saying that criticizing other posters is bad form.
I know that, for the most part, you're a pretty civil guy around here. But making statements like the above open the door for those who would choose not to be civil if given the opportunity. And there may not be a huge contingent of people here who fall into that category, per se, but they can be loud, abrasive, and can present an image of MetaFilter than may not be accurate.
I completely disagree with the notion that you have to be thick-skinned to post here. It's arguments like that that perhaps silence more timid posters. And I have a soft spot in my heart for those who have intelligent opinions but lack the confidence to post them here. I'm not suggesting that there is a general lack of intelligent comments here; but the civility in this place could always get better. That's been the case ever since this site came to be.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:37 PM on March 24, 2005
I know that, for the most part, you're a pretty civil guy around here. But making statements like the above open the door for those who would choose not to be civil if given the opportunity. And there may not be a huge contingent of people here who fall into that category, per se, but they can be loud, abrasive, and can present an image of MetaFilter than may not be accurate.
I completely disagree with the notion that you have to be thick-skinned to post here. It's arguments like that that perhaps silence more timid posters. And I have a soft spot in my heart for those who have intelligent opinions but lack the confidence to post them here. I'm not suggesting that there is a general lack of intelligent comments here; but the civility in this place could always get better. That's been the case ever since this site came to be.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:37 PM on March 24, 2005
Generalities, however, which don't apply in this case.
Which is why I added the disclaimer at the end. I was attempting to address what I perceived to be comments inthread that were missing the larger point. Other than that point atop my head, of course.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:33 PM on March 24, 2005
Which is why I added the disclaimer at the end. I was attempting to address what I perceived to be comments inthread that were missing the larger point. Other than that point atop my head, of course.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:33 PM on March 24, 2005
MetaTalk: a public shaming ritual and Maoist-style "re-education", completed with the "transgressor's" abject apology.
Or, MetaTalk: We eat our young. Sometimes.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:36 PM on March 24, 2005
Or, MetaTalk: We eat our young. Sometimes.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:36 PM on March 24, 2005
stavros is so reasonable. I wish he wasn't such a collectivist.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:47 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by Kwantsar at 8:47 PM on March 24, 2005
"stavros is so reasonable."
A metafilter first.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:50 PM on March 24, 2005
A metafilter first.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:50 PM on March 24, 2005
Bastard.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:53 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:53 PM on March 24, 2005
[/grin]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:54 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:54 PM on March 24, 2005
I fell asleep somewhere around the third or fourth consecutive anapestic/c13 couplet. When I awoke, feeling much refreshed, I elected to just skip down to the bottom and post my thoughts regardless of whatever conclusion (or not - they could still be arguing for all I know) they arrived at.
I prefer to give newbies a warm reception. Creating a good first impression before trussing them up for the slaughter is probably smart policy. I feel bad for for meg, but if someone is really that sensitive to criticism it's quite possible that they would be better served by simply reading the site rather than directly participating. This is probably the best thing for them, and for the site as well - I'm certainly not eager to begin some kind of MetaFilter Politeness Inquisition spearheaded by the MetaTalk Secret Police. [/hyperbole]
Before I turn in, some parting shot^H^H^H^Hthoughts:
orthogonality wrote:
MetaTalk: a public shaming ritual and Maoist-style "re-education", completed with the "transgressor's" abject apology.
What are you talking about? Was that sarcasm? An insult? If so, to whom was it directed? Meg? Metatalk? Or was it just an omnidirectional attack aimed at the universe? Help me help you.
EB: there needs to be some kind of word for the MetaTalk equivalent to "AgendaFilter," so that we can describe the first comment you make in a thread where NewsFilter is even tangentially mentioned.* Sheesh.
*"OR HOW ABOUT EVERY COMMENT YOU MAKE IN A THREAD WHERE DELETION IS MENTIONED, RYVAR??!?!!!"
Yeah, yeah, I know. Shut up.
posted by Ryvar at 9:03 PM on March 24, 2005
I prefer to give newbies a warm reception. Creating a good first impression before trussing them up for the slaughter is probably smart policy. I feel bad for for meg, but if someone is really that sensitive to criticism it's quite possible that they would be better served by simply reading the site rather than directly participating. This is probably the best thing for them, and for the site as well - I'm certainly not eager to begin some kind of MetaFilter Politeness Inquisition spearheaded by the MetaTalk Secret Police. [/hyperbole]
Before I turn in, some parting shot^H^H^H^Hthoughts:
orthogonality wrote:
MetaTalk: a public shaming ritual and Maoist-style "re-education", completed with the "transgressor's" abject apology.
What are you talking about? Was that sarcasm? An insult? If so, to whom was it directed? Meg? Metatalk? Or was it just an omnidirectional attack aimed at the universe? Help me help you.
EB: there needs to be some kind of word for the MetaTalk equivalent to "AgendaFilter," so that we can describe the first comment you make in a thread where NewsFilter is even tangentially mentioned.* Sheesh.
*"OR HOW ABOUT EVERY COMMENT YOU MAKE IN A THREAD WHERE DELETION IS MENTIONED, RYVAR??!?!!!"
Yeah, yeah, I know. Shut up.
posted by Ryvar at 9:03 PM on March 24, 2005
I liked this post. Informative, interesting, not overwrought with so many links I don't have time to even begin reading them. Metafilter needs more like it.
posted by jb at 9:26 PM on March 24, 2005
posted by jb at 9:26 PM on March 24, 2005
Ryvar writes "orthogonality wrote:
"MetaTalk: a public shaming ritual and Maoist-style 're-education', completed with the 'transgressor's' abject apology.
"What are you talking about? Was that sarcasm? An insult? If so, to whom was it directed? Meg? Metatalk? Or was it just an omnidirectional attack aimed at the universe? Help me help you."
It was neither sarcasm nor an insult. Maoist "re-education" was a formalized ritual that ended with the person being "re-educated" making an apology where they pointed out his own failings, in terms of Maoist ideology: "I failed to recognize that my selling chickens for a profit made me a running-dig, and I failed to note truism 133 in the Little Red Book, which states..."
Public shaming rituals of course are universals: every culture has its equivalent of the stocks (15 century England) or scarlet letter (colonial New England) or "perp walk" (contemporary USA) or revenge rape (contemporary Afghanistan) or whatever. MetaFilter does too, in the form of the MetaTalk call-out.
Like many such public shaming rituals, the supposed "transgressor", after being held up to community ridicule, is required to -- like in Maoist re-education -- accept culpability for her "crimes", thus signalling that she now "understands" (or at least can parrot) the community's (written or unwritten) rules, and, more importantly, accepts the community's power over her.
In many US states, the same thing is practiced at Parole Boards which either legally cannot or typically do not grant parole unless the convict admits his guilt. Convicts who are actually innocent are faced with the choice of "admitting" an unreal guilt, or staying in prison -- but either choice underscores the community's power over the victim, either to imprison his body or to make him accept a view of reality he knows is not true.
This wasn't aimed at meg6212, who I think made a post that while not the greatest ever seen here, was a sincere first effort. Nor was it aimed the universe in general or MetaFilter in general. Instead, it was aimed at that small subset of Mefites who I think take a bit too much pleasure in castigating fellow Mefites, and showing newbies in particular, "who's boss".
A weak FPP is not, I think, worth raking anyone over the coals. The poster will see that his weak FPP gets little feedback, and will make corrections to his next post. Of course, if one poster makes a long train of weak posts, then sure, bring it up here. But on her first post, I think a call-out was gratuitous and mean-spirited.
Seeing meg6212's apology -- well, it just seemed like the result of hazing or bullying of the new student by the playground wise-asses, until the newbie cried uncle, and I found it unnecessary and unpleasant. Others, naturally will disagree with me, and that is their right.
PS: I like your quoting style, with the attribution in small and the line break. Unobtrusive and yet easy to notice.
posted by orthogonality at 10:08 PM on March 24, 2005
"MetaTalk: a public shaming ritual and Maoist-style 're-education', completed with the 'transgressor's' abject apology.
"What are you talking about? Was that sarcasm? An insult? If so, to whom was it directed? Meg? Metatalk? Or was it just an omnidirectional attack aimed at the universe? Help me help you."
It was neither sarcasm nor an insult. Maoist "re-education" was a formalized ritual that ended with the person being "re-educated" making an apology where they pointed out his own failings, in terms of Maoist ideology: "I failed to recognize that my selling chickens for a profit made me a running-dig, and I failed to note truism 133 in the Little Red Book, which states..."
Public shaming rituals of course are universals: every culture has its equivalent of the stocks (15 century England) or scarlet letter (colonial New England) or "perp walk" (contemporary USA) or revenge rape (contemporary Afghanistan) or whatever. MetaFilter does too, in the form of the MetaTalk call-out.
Like many such public shaming rituals, the supposed "transgressor", after being held up to community ridicule, is required to -- like in Maoist re-education -- accept culpability for her "crimes", thus signalling that she now "understands" (or at least can parrot) the community's (written or unwritten) rules, and, more importantly, accepts the community's power over her.
In many US states, the same thing is practiced at Parole Boards which either legally cannot or typically do not grant parole unless the convict admits his guilt. Convicts who are actually innocent are faced with the choice of "admitting" an unreal guilt, or staying in prison -- but either choice underscores the community's power over the victim, either to imprison his body or to make him accept a view of reality he knows is not true.
This wasn't aimed at meg6212, who I think made a post that while not the greatest ever seen here, was a sincere first effort. Nor was it aimed the universe in general or MetaFilter in general. Instead, it was aimed at that small subset of Mefites who I think take a bit too much pleasure in castigating fellow Mefites, and showing newbies in particular, "who's boss".
A weak FPP is not, I think, worth raking anyone over the coals. The poster will see that his weak FPP gets little feedback, and will make corrections to his next post. Of course, if one poster makes a long train of weak posts, then sure, bring it up here. But on her first post, I think a call-out was gratuitous and mean-spirited.
Seeing meg6212's apology -- well, it just seemed like the result of hazing or bullying of the new student by the playground wise-asses, until the newbie cried uncle, and I found it unnecessary and unpleasant. Others, naturally will disagree with me, and that is their right.
PS: I like your quoting style, with the attribution in small and the line break. Unobtrusive and yet easy to notice.
posted by orthogonality at 10:08 PM on March 24, 2005
orthogonality wrote:
PS: I like your quoting style, with the attribution in small and the line break. Unobtrusive and yet easy to notice.
Hey, thanks. I always make the small cite text a link if it's offsite or to another thread. I haven't yet decided though if it should be a link when I'm citing a comment within the current thread. The HTML is pretty simple, though:
<b><small><small>Someone wrote:</small></small></b>
<i><small>Text goes here</small></i>
I need to create a Mozilla plugin or something to do this automatically.
posted by Ryvar at 10:05 AM on March 25, 2005
PS: I like your quoting style, with the attribution in small and the line break. Unobtrusive and yet easy to notice.
Hey, thanks. I always make the small cite text a link if it's offsite or to another thread. I haven't yet decided though if it should be a link when I'm citing a comment within the current thread. The HTML is pretty simple, though:
<b><small><small>Someone wrote:</small></small></b>
<i><small>Text goes here</small></i>
I need to create a Mozilla plugin or something to do this automatically.
posted by Ryvar at 10:05 AM on March 25, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by quonsar at 10:05 AM on March 24, 2005